Deference to agency interpretation - Texas

From The Energy Law Blog, "Supreme Court of Texas Reverses Appeals Court in Oil and Gas Waste Injection Well Permitting Case" by Carlos J. Moreno:

In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future and Clean Water, No. 08-0497, 2011 WL 836827 (Tex. Mar. 11, 2011), the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Austin Court of Appeal’s finding that the Railroad Commission (the “Commission”) has to consider broad public safety concerns in the permitting of proposed oil and gas waste injection wells. ...

Before the Commission can grant an injection well permit, the Texas Injection Well Act requires it to find that the use or installation of the injection well is in the public interest.  At the administrative hearing, a group of residents living near the well (“Texas Citizens”) expressed concern about the large trucks hauling fracing waste water and whether the trucks would damage nearby roads. The Commission concluded that it had no jurisdiction to regulate traffic, and granted the injection well permit after finding that doing so would be in the public interest. Subsequently, Texas Citizens challenged the Commission’s findings in state court, arguing in part that the Commission should have considered traffic safety concerns in its public interest inquiry. The trial court found in favor of the Commission, but the appeals court reversed. The court of appeals found that the Commission had abused its discretion in interpreting the public interest inquiry too narrowly. The Commission and the proposed injection well operator appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.

The supreme court framed the issue as a statutory construction inquiry. The court evaluated whether the commission’s interpretation of the public interest inquiry, as including only matters related to oil and gas production, should be given judicial deference. Looking at Texas case law, the court found that the Commission’s interpretation of the “public interest” language should be given “serious consideration” if the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language of the statute. ...

Other factors considered by the Court included different language in this statute compared with other types of injection wells, the lack of any limits at all on the term "public interest" as interpreted by the appellants, and legislative silence on the Commission's interpretation over a long time. EMM